myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Spencer <pau...@apache.org>
Subject Re: MyFaces JSF Commons Project
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:29:30 GMT
Scott,
My concern is when components, like Tomahawk, become dependent on JSF 
Commons, then they will inherit the dependencies of JSF Commons.  If a 
component in JSF Commons is not intended to be used with JSF 1.1, or 
none of JSF 1.1 components, like Tomahawk, require the commons 
component, then I have no objection for a non-JSF 1.1. compliant 
dependency.

Paul Spencer

Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> Cool, I was hoping we had one.  :)  Paul, you mind if I ask you some 
> questions about this?
> 
> I can totally understand the want/need for the converters and validators 
> to be ported to 1.1 (and thus need 1.4 support), but what about the 
> utilities?  Currently Trinidad, Tomahawk, and Tobago support JDK 1.1 and 
> therefore their adoption of the common utilities would be slow if not 
> non-existant.  I know that the logic I'm trying to introduce, although 
> it could be used in JSF 1.1 environments, really becomes most useful 
> when dealing with JSF 1.2 and the portlet bridge.  I also wouldn't think 
> that things like unified multi-part form processing would be likely to 
> make it into current 1.1 renderkits since it would require a lot of code 
> to be rewritten and may not be backward compatible.
> 
> Scott
> 
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>> +1 on JSF 1.2 only
>> +1 on 1.1 support with JDK 1.5 required on both.
>> +1 on 1.1 w/ 1.4
>>    I have projects I support on HP-UX that are currently running
>>    JDK 1.4.
>>
>> Paul Spencer
>>
>> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>>> I would go for:
>>>
>>> +1 on JSF 1.2 only
>>>
>>> This is open source, so no one is required to use it and embracing 1.2
>>> is only going to help the development community move forward.
>>>
>>> +0.5 on 1.1 support with JDK 1.5 required on both.
>>>
>>> Just because the specification supports 1.4 does mean libraries have
>>> to. JDK 1.5 has been out plenty long enough for companies to adopt it.
>>> If they cannot adopt it, they should be willing to forgo new libraries
>>> and functionality
>>>
>>> -1 on 1.1 w/ 1.4
>>>
>>> This is too much work and will really hold nicer features back (I also
>>> would have no interest in developing and testing it personally).
>>>
>>> Just my $.02
>>>
>>> -Andrew
>>>
>>> On Nov 29, 2007 10:06 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 2007 5:57 PM, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to try to put together a proposal for some items it add 
>>>>> to the
>>>>> jsf commons fairly soon for your purusal.  First off, however, I'd 
>>>>> like
>>>>> some technical information on this project as it may effect how the
>>>>> project is set up.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Which version of JSF will be the minimum for this project?  One 
>>>>> of my
>>>>> proposals involves needing an ExternalContextWrapper and the 
>>>>> version of
>>>>> JSF does make a difference.  I, personally, would like to see this 
>>>>> based
>>>>> off 1.2 but if we need a 1.1 Faces Commons then I would recommend 
>>>>> both a
>>>>> 1.1 and a 1.2 branch.
>>>> here we go;
>>>> my understanding is, that 1.1 is a must
>>>>
>>>>> 2. What is the minimum JDK we are going to use for this project.  My
>>>>> preference would be J2SE 5 for the build.  I could even live with 
>>>>> making
>>>>> sure that code can be compiled with J2SE 5 in 1.4 compatibility 
>>>>> mode but
>>>>> I think we need to be able to support generics at the very least.  Of
>>>>> course if we're basing the commons project off of JSF 1.2, J2SE5 is a
>>>>> no-brainer.  :)
>>>> JSF 1.1 => java1.4
>>>> JSF 1.2 => JDK5
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>
>>>> further stuff:
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message